The court upheld that property cannot be taken without due process and compensation, referencing Article 300A, and applicable case law.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Since despite there being utilization of the land of the petitioner for construction of “Chamaru Jachli Mathaik road”, petitioner has not been paid compensation by the department after acquiring the land, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main reliefs:

“(a) Writ of certiorari may kindly be issued against the office order dated 09.01.2023, annexure P-6 and the office order dated 09.01.2023 may be set aside and quashed in the facts and circumstances stated in the petition.

(b) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceeding qua the land of the petitioner used for the construction of road i.e. Chamaru Jachli link road denoted by Khasra No. 1159/1, situated at Mohal Jachli, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, HP as reflected in Jamabandi Annexure P-1.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the land of the petitioner denoted by Khasra No. 1159/1, situate at Mohal Jachli, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, came to be utilized for the construction of “Chamaru Jachli Mathaik road” in the year 1983, but since respondents failed to initiate acquisition proceedings and no compensation was paid to the petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and thereafter pay compensation.

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed the reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed herein above, are not in dispute, rather stand duly admitted. Precisely, the claim of the petitioner, as has been raised in the petition, has been refuted by the respondents on the ground that present petition is barred by delay and laches and land was made available by the petitioner of his own volition with clear-cut understanding that he would not seek any compensation.

4. Mr. B.S.Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that land of the petitioner stands utilized for construction of the road in question, respondent cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation after initiation of the proceedings in terms of provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act . He further submitted that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that consent, if any, was ever given by the petitioner to provide the land free of cost. While placing heavy reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi v. State of HP and Ors , 2020 (2) SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors , 2022 (7) SCC 508, Mr. Chauhan, argued that plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in the case of continuing cause of action, especially, in land acquisition matters. He also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 18.7.2023, passed by this Court in CWP No. 8647 of 2022, titled Sh. Ramanand and Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors , whereby this Court, while placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, rejected the plea of delay and laches raised by the respondents-State and directed respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings.

5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting the use of the land belonging to the petitioner for construction of the road, stated that though there is no written document suggestive of the fact that land was utilized with the consent of the petitioner, but having taken note of the fact that petitioner remained silent for more than four decades, this Court can infer and presume that there was an implied consent on the part of the petitioner for construction of the road without there being compensation. While making this court peruse judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh in